It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

page: 66
53
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

I am pointing out that we have seen no actual evidence of wrongdoing by anyone, have had no charges filed against anyone,


By "anyone" you mean Cohen, right? Not the other indicted, convicted, plea-deal and cooperating witness Trump team Members?

And yes, publicly, we have seen "evidence of wrongdoing" by Cohen. We haven't seen all the evidence or an indictment or conviction.



and some have already sentenced Cohen to a public crucifixion and locked the cell door on Trump.



Public figures are publicly judged.
Criminals are judged by the Justice system.
Plenty of people are both.



In the meantime, client-attorney privilege may be being abused and no one seems to care...


Where? How? Attorneys are not immune from being investigated, even a Presidents fixer.



edit on 16-4-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
No they are not.
They want to edit content after the fact as privileged.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan

I don't see why the court would care. Unless there is documentation involved.


I can think of many situations where this is relevant. Hannity has made no secret of the fact that he is regularly in contact with Trump and advising him on policy. What else were they discussing? If a news organization and the President are conspiring to push a certain story, is it legal? Could they have been trying to hide the communications by using an attorney to conceal it?



Hadn't pondered that possibility.

Put a different way, what if Hannity was in fact not Cohen's client, but rather Trump was Hannity's client with Cohen as middleman. Hannity taking payment via shell corps to push Trump's chosen themes/stories/agenda and otherwise cheerlead for Trump?

Sounds outrageous, but nothing seems too out there with this crew these days.

Why hasn't Hannity come clean on what he consulted with Cohen about? Why did Cohen's lawyers call Hannity a client in court only to have Hannity deny it on the airwaves?

This is weird.

I'll place that in the 10% likely category.


I dont get the impression it goes that deep. I could be wrong though. I dont feel like he would have listed Hannity, if there wasnt some evidence that he knows about that could be there that he has been helping Hannity with something. Could be something small. I feel like Hannity threw him under the bus a bit earlier.

Though Hannity has apparently changed his story a bit and said he pushed to make sure there was attorney-client privlege, so that could have given Cohen the impression they were a parternship, but I think there is probably slightly more there than that. I couldnt really speculate as to what though.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

If you are going to start playing dumb, we can end this right now.

It is pretty obvious I am talking about anyone IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE. Duh. Homer Simpson could have figured that one out. After a lobotomy. On both sides. You are smarter than that; you can obviously operate a keyboard.

And I see you chose to prove my point that no one seems to care about client-attorney privilege. Just remember that cuts both directions. Don't complain when such tactics are used against someone you support.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Hannity says he was not a client. Right?
This is what Cohen says:

In a letter to the court Monday morning, Cohen's lawyers said his third recent client, besides Trump and Broidy, wished to remain anonymous.

As to the one unnamed legal client, we do not believe that Mr. Cohen should be asked to reveal the name or can permissibly do so,” the letter said. A federal judge disagreed.
source

Did Hannity tell Cohen that he wasn't he client? I appears that no, that was not his position. He just didn't want to be, and did not expect to be, named.

Hannity should sue the sumbitch.
edit on 4/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I’m pretty sure being billed is MORE than enough to establish Cohen is his lawyer. That said crimes where the lawyer is involved negates attorney client privilege.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh stop. We don't have it. Why are you even asking? A judge issued the warrant. He or she didn't throw a dart at a chart to come up with their decision. They weighed evidence.
At this moment no one is being charged with anything. That's what will be determined after examining what they have.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


At this moment no one is being charged with anything. That's what will be determined after examining what they have.

So you are admitting this is a witchhunt? That's the definition of one: "We'll find something to charge you on if we look hard enough."

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Aazadan

I’m pretty sure being billed is MORE than enough to establish Cohen is his lawyer. That said crimes where the lawyer is involved negates attorney client privilege.


Billing for services would establish someone as a client, but an absence of being billed (as seems to be the case here) doesn't mean someone isn't a client.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sillyolme


At this moment no one is being charged with anything. That's what will be determined after examining what they have.

So you are admitting this is a witchhunt? That's the definition of one: "We'll find something to charge you on if we look hard enough."

TheRedneck


Evidence is always gathered before charges are made. Otherwise people could be charged for anything, which would then open up an investigation to prove those charges.

1. Evidence of a crime is found.
2. A warrant is issued to obtain additional evidence.
3. That evidence is presented to a court
4. Charges are filed and those involved are summoned to court.
5. Charges are debated in court.

We are currently on step 3.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh you need evidence to gain a warrant..for us regular joes they can get one by claiming anything.. for the president’s personal shady lawyer I’m guessing it takes ALOT of evidence..


Like a “we already know your guilty” amount..



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

OMG.. I never thought about trump paying hannity to shill for him!!!

I was guessing he had paid off an old hannity affair. Lol



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

If you are going to start playing dumb, we can end this right now.



No, if I was going to play dumb I'd question if there was any evidence required for the FBI to raid Cohen and then I would question whether that Grand Jury Investigation evidence exists if it is not being shared publicly.

I would play dumb enough to infer they raided a sitting Presidents attorney without any evidence to warrant it, but avoid saying it outright so I wouldn't have to defend such an inane assertion.




And I see you chose to prove my point that no one seems to care about client-attorney privilege.


Strange. Can show me where attorney-client privilege has been violated?
Or is your argument that Attorneys are immune from being investigated for criminal activity?



Just remember that cuts both directions. Don't complain when such tactics are used against someone you support.


That "Tactic" is the United States Justice System and yes it should cut both ways and EVERY direction, even for a Presidents personal fixer.



edit on 16-4-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I bet that is even super lenient..


What if I’m in jail and you will lawyer for me pro-bono???

And precedent would have been likely set in Wild West days. Where a hand shake and an X was a land deal..



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sillyolme


At this moment no one is being charged with anything. That's what will be determined after examining what they have.

So you are admitting this is a witchhunt?


It's strange and mildly embarrassing when you tell other posters what they are saying.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The problem is the timing between step 2 and 4. Without a strict guideline for that, anyone can be charged with anything, and their property seized for any reason.

In your feverish angst to 'get Trump,' you are setting up your own downfall.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It takes a lot of evidence even for an 'average Joe's lawyer to be raided... or it did until now. Now it can be done and no one will question it. Thanks for playing. Too bad you broke the game.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

OK, nice talking with you.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

When you have millions of documents to go through as part of the investigation it takes time.

How long did it take to investigate Hillary's emails? There were millions of them and only a handful of investigators. Sometimes the quickest path to resolve an investigation properly can take months or years.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

OK, nice talking with you.



You meant "at" right? "Nice talking at you?

Cuz I appeared the only one answering questions in that "exchange".

Sorry you didn't like the answers.



edit on 16-4-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
53
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join